[ovirt-devel] Fwd: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

[Yaniv Bronheim]

yes, sounds like that. please take the patch, I plan to publish new build
with that change and without the exclusive arch that I added

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI, Fedora reviewed vdsm spec file regarding obsoletes.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko at redhat.com>
>> Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:14 PM
>> Subject: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes
>> To: Development discussions related to Fedora <
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>, devel-announce at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
>>
>> All guidelines mandate the use of </<= Obsoletes, but unfortunately we
>> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with
>> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes.
>>
>> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added)
>> or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new
>> package.
>>
>> Problem categories (in following text by "never" I mean latest N-2
>> releases):
>>
>> * Package/SubPackage was never built in Fedora
>> Package "python" has "Obsoletes: python2" which was never built ->
>> drop Obsoletes
>> SubPackage "qpid-proton-c" of "qpid-proton" has "Obsoletes:
>> qpid-proton" which was not the package for long time -> drop Obsoletes
>>
>> * Package replacement
>> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version
>> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2
>> storaged is not simple use-case as it replaces udisks2, but latter is
>> still not retired.
>>
>> * "=" Obsoletes
>> "rubygem-vte" has "Obsoletes: ruby-vte = 3.0.9-1.fc26" (probably it's
>> macro in spec) which seems really weird as it will not obsolete
>> F24/F25 with such version
>>
>> * Obsoletes by Provides
>> It doesn't work to prevent undefined behavior. Imagine you have
>> installed "A" and "B", both providing "C". Package "D" has "Obsoletes:
>> C", it should not remove "A" and "B".
>> ** %{?_isa}
>> "glibc-headers" has "Obsoletes: glibc-headers(i686)". %{?_isa} is just
>> text, it's not part of architecture or something else.
>> ** Other provides
>> "rubygem-http_connection" has "Obsoletes:
>> rubygem(right_http_connection)". Latter is virtual provides.
>>
>> * Weird obsoletes (broken)
>> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686".
>> Basically it will not obsolete anything because it's threated as
>> package name (and we definitely don't have such package name).
>>
>> * >/>= Obsoletes
>> "vdsm" has "Obsoletes: vdsm-infra >= 4.16.0". It's almost same as
>> unversioned Obsoletes. So it must not be used.
>>
>
> Should be fixed here if I understood the problem
> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/63215
>



-- 
*Yaniv Bronhaim.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160902/45082010/attachment-0001.html>